Purgatory is a place that exists according Roman Catholic Theology, and a number of people who are not Roman Catholic believe in it, too. In Catholic theology, it is a place where you go after death if you are not yet ready for heaven, so that you can receive punishments for the venial sins (the less serious sins, as opposed to mortal sins) that have not yet been dealt with in this life. As Thomas Aquinas put it,

[I]f the debt of punishment is not paid in full after the stain of sin has been washed away by contrition, nor again are venial sins always removed when mortal sins are remitted, and if justice demands that sin be set in order by due punishment, it follows that one who after contrition for his fault and after being absolved, dies before making due satisfaction, is punished after this life. Wherefore those who deny Purgatory speak against the justice of God: for which reason such a statement is erroneous and contrary to faith.

Outside of this historical Catholic understanding of purgatory, others have suggested, not that people need to be punished, but rather that they simply need to be fully sanctified (made holy) before reaching their final state in heaven. Jerry Walls defends this view in his book Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. In public conversations, Dr Walls has remarked that while no doubt the sinful human desire is to have total transformation all at once, the reality is that sanctification is a process that takes time, hence purgatory.

I do not believe in purgatory, but I will not here argue that purgatory does not exist. Instead, I will just make one observation: To believe in purgatory presupposes mind-body substance dualism.

I am taking it as given that Christians who believe in purgatory, as well as those who do not, regard the teaching of the New Testament as authoritative. When Christ returns and the dead are raised, according to St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, both those who were dead and the saints who are still alive will be transformed immediately.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body…
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

The transformation to glory, honour, power, imperishability etc that is envisioned here is said to happen “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” which I take to mean very quickly, more or less straight away. So a gradual process of transformation to glory seems out of the picture after the resurrection of the dead.

But this does not trouble traditional Catholic theology, since Purgatory is believed to be a place that exists now, and right now the souls of those who will eventually see glory are being purified. This is why Catholics are urged to pray for those in purgatory, and why masses have been said for them, so that their time in purgatory might be made shorter. Similarly, neo-purgatory (as I am wont to call Jerry Walls’ view) can accommodate a period to transformation as one approaches glory prior to the resurrection, when transformation to glory and power etc will occur “in a moment,” provided it locates such transformation in an intermediate state between death and resurrection, as does Roman Catholic theology.

What any such view presupposes, obviously, is that I can exist, I can think, I can be held responsible, I can be punished, I can undergo moral and spiritual improvement, etc, while my body is no more. That won’t come as a shock to people who believe in purgatory, because this is exactly what they believe about themselves. This view is mind-body substance dualism (since the “I,” the mind or soul, is a thing that can exist without any physical substance).

But anyone making a case for purgatory (and anyone considering that case) should consider this fact. In order to believe in purgatory without tension with your other beliefs, you must hold (or adopt, if you do not yet hold) mind-body substance dualism. To the extent that you have a reason to reject that view of human persons, you have a reason to not believe in purgatory.

Or so it currently seems to me.

]]>http://www.rightreason.org/2019/purgatory-requires-dualism/feed/47649Calvin and the Marian Doctrineshttp://www.rightreason.org/2019/calvin-and-the-marian-doctrines/
http://www.rightreason.org/2019/calvin-and-the-marian-doctrines/#respondThu, 03 Jan 2019 11:47:54 +0000http://www.rightreason.org/?p=7577Continue reading Calvin and the Marian Doctrines]]>Calvin did not accept the Marian doctrines. Without wanting to sound too rancorous, I have to say that anti-Protestant polemics can be the worst.

I’m sorry. I know that’s a very one-sided thing to say, but I encounter anti-Protestant polemics more than anti-Catholic polemics, because I’m not Roman Catholic. Sometimes the phenomenon goes by the name “Catholic apologetics,” as though it’s really a pro-Catholic thing, but that’s not how some of these warriors-for-Rome present themselves. They’re about claiming scalps in arguments.

I love some Catholic theologians and philosophers – and Catholic people in general. So I’m not going to refer to these people as just “Catholic scholars.” It would be unfair to Catholic scholars in general to lump them all together, which is why I keep open a category for anti-Protestant polemics, separate from Catholic scholarship. It’s a let-down for me, because some of the finest work in philosophical theology today has been produced by Roman Catholic Scholars (think Brian Leftow, Brian Davies, Edward Feser – EDIT: My mistake, Brian Leftow is not Catholic. He’s Anglican. But he sure writes like the best Catholic philosophers), so to turn from such fine minds and work to online blunt-axe-swinging warriors is a bit like swallowing the cheapest bourbon and cola money can buy after sampling a fine port.

That somewhat frustrated preamble aside, here’s what moved me to write this post. The other day I saw yet another anti-Protestant polemicist make the familiar claim: “Most Protestants would be surprised to learn that all the early Reformers accepted the Marian doctrines.” That’s not a direct quote, but it’s close (the part about all the early Reformers was central to the claim), and I’ve seen the claim made numerous times.

Supposing it were true, I’m not really sure what the argument is supposed to be (if there is one). That Protestants should believe something just because the Reformers did? That Protestants are supposed to view the Reformers in the same way Catholics view the Pope? At best it’s simply an appeal to authority, but unless the Reformers offered good reasons to believe the Marian doctrines, there’s no good reason for Protestants to be impressed by the fact that they believed the Marian doctrines. After all, the Reformers were recently Catholic, and habits die hard. Luther trained as a priest, Calvin was employed as a Bishop’s clerk at age 12 and was initially headed for the priesthood until his father changed his mind and had him train as a lawyer instead. These were people raised to adulthood as Catholics, so it wouldn’t be surprising if they held some Catholic theology.

But when anti-Protestant polemicists make this comment, and in particular when they list the name of John Calvin as someone who accepted the Marian doctrines, I do wonder if they are saying it because of their own broad knowledge of what Calvin said, or just because an anti-Protestant website supplied a couple of quotes. On the basis of my recent conversation (and others like it), I suspect the latter. Even at the popular level of online Catholic apologetics (some of which is far from innocent in this particular error), there are some – but not enough – who are willing to speak up about anti-Protestant rhetoric that repeats this false claim about Calvin. More of them need to do this. But if I can do anything to help put out the fire of such gossip about the dead, I am happy to do so.

What are the Marian Doctrines?

When I talk about the Marian doctrines, I am talking about those things that Roman Catholics believe about Mary, the mother of Jesus, which are not usually believed by other Christians (although some of them are believed by Eastern Orthodox Christians). Specifically, I mean the following six doctrines:

The Immaculate Conception: Mary, unlike the rest of humanity, was conceived without original sin.

Perpetual virginity. This is the doctrine that although Mary was legally married to Joseph, she did not have a sexual relationship with him and she remained a virgin her whole life. This doctrine is sometimes construed in terms of purity, so that if Mary had had a normal marriage to Joseph, this would have somehow diminished her purity or holiness.

The sinlessness of Mary. This is the doctrine that not only was Mary conceived without original sin, but she also committed no actual sins in her life.

Bodily Assumption: Mary was taken up into heaven at the end of her earthly life. Some Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) teach that she first died and was then resurrected and assumed into heaven. Others (and in my experience this has seemed to be the majority view among Roman Catholics) teach that she never died but was taken up into heaven at the time when she would have died.

Coronation: After being bodily taken into heaven, Mary was crowned as the “Queen of Heaven.”

Mediatrix: Lastly, Mary is a mediatrix (the feminine of mediator), who is able to hear us when we make petitions for her to offer prayers on our behalf to God. This is probably the most visible of the Marian doctrines today as Catholics worldwide offer prayers such as the Rosary, in which they ask Mary to pray for us, including such prayers of devotion as “Hail, Holy Queen.” As a young Catholic I prayed many Rosaries. This (prayers to Mary – not the Rosary in particular) is a practice that appears to have originated in the second half of the third century.

There may be further views on Mary and terms used for Mary in Roman Catholic thought that are generally absent from Protestant thought (e.g. referring to Mary as “co-redemptrix” or speaking of her as an “Ark” of the new covenant), but I have listed the main Marian doctrines here. When I ask whether or not Calvin held to the Marian doctrines, these are the ones I mean. It would be sneaky, after all, to find some possible, albeit ambiguous, support in Calvin for one of these doctrines, and then to proclaim that Calvin held “the Marian doctrines.”

Did Calvin affirm the Marian doctrines?

With this short list of the Marian doctrines in mind, let’s turn to the writings of John Calvin and ask whether or not he believed these doctrines to be true. The short story is that in some cases he clearly did not, and in the remaining cases there is no good evidence that he did.

The Immaculate Conception (and sinlessness) of Mary

As far as I know, Calvin does not comment directly on whether or not Mary was subject to original sin. Certainly he had no need to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived in order for Jesus to be free of original sin. After all, Calvin held to federal headship, believing that Adam was like a legal representative of humanity when he sinned, and that is why his sin is imputed to us. Calvin did not write that sin was somehow transmitted biologically.

Although he did not comment explicitly on her conception, Calvin did voice his disagreement with Rome’s view that Mary was without sin. The Council of Trent was a Roman Catholic Council held in part to define Catholic teaching over and against that of Protestant groups, and to condemn Protestant teaching. Trent’s Canon 23 reads as follows:

lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

As to the special privilege of the Virgin Mary, when they produce the celestial diploma we shall believe what they say: for to what do they here give the name of the Church, but just to the Council of Clermont? Augustine was certainly a member of the Church, and though he in one passage chooses, in order to avoid obloquy, rather to be silent respecting the blessed Virgin, he uniformly, without making her an exception, describes the Whole race of Adam as involved in sin. Nay, he even almost in distinct terms classes her among sinners, when writing to Marcellinus, he says, They err greatly who hold that any of the saints except Christ require not to use this prayer, “Forgive us our debts.” In so doing, they by no means please the saints whom they laud. Chrysostom and Ambrose, who suspect her of having been tempted by ambition, were members of the Church. All these things I mention for no other end but to let my readers understand that there is no figment so nugatory as not to be classed by these blockheads among the Articles of Faith.

Blockheads! The impartial reader can hardly take this as an approving remark. It is quite evident that Calvin did not share the Council’s view on Mary’s sinlessness, and, additionally, in his view some of the Church Fathers didn’t either.

Perpetual Virginity

Readers of Calvin’s exegesis may know (or at least I think they should believe) that he had a generous streak. By that I mean he didn’t claim victories over the meaning of biblical passages when he genuinely didn’t think the evidence was decisively in his favour. He was the guy who said “OK guys, it would be nice if this passage worked for us like you say it does, but no, it doesn’t actually say that.” We can see this in his Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Matthew 1:24-25 tells the reader that after Mary and Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant, “he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.”

Some people (in my own view, correctly) take this to mean that Joseph took Mary to be his wife but did not have sex with her until (ἕως οὗ, heos hou) after Jesus was born, at which point normal, healthy marital sexual relations would have ensued. This of course would deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. I won’t offer a defence of this view here (and it would be uncharitable to interpret this silence as though there is no case to be made). The interested reader can consult how heos hou is used throughout the New Testament. Similarly, “until she had born a son” is translated as “until she had brought forth her firstborn son” in some versions, suggesting that he was the first of many sons. But Calvin resists this interpretation of Matthew 1:25, even though it would have given him ammunition against Rome. Here is his reply:

There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture, which is, as St. Paul says, “to be used for our edification.”1

Notice that in rejecting this interpretation of Matthew 1:25, Calvin does not deny that Mary and Joseph went on to have normal sexual relations. But he denies that this is what is taught here in this verse, the key words being “from this passage.” True or otherwise, a view on Joseph and Mary’s later sex life should not be inferred “from this passage.” Instead, Calvin says, the writer was actually silent about what happened afterwards, and was only trying to stress that Joseph was obedient and to note that Joseph had never slept with Mary. This was the Son of God in Mary’s womb. In the same way, Calvin does not affirm that there was no second-born son. He says, in the same spirit of generosity, that Jesus is not here called the firstborn son because there was a second or a third, but for another reason entirely, namely to indicate the “precedence” of Christ, even though there is no question of a second son raised here (and hence that question is not answered in the negative or the affirmative).

Unfortunately, many anti-Protestant polemicists reproduce this quote from Calvin, claiming that it shows he did believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. While Calvin himself expressly wrote that the Evangelist wanted to say nothing here about whether or not Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage after Jesus’ birth, his Catholic abusers (which of course does not include all Catholic readers of Calvin) wish to read him has doing the opposite – making a claim about what happened after Jesus’ birth!

This is not the only time Calvin made it clear that he did not affirm or deny the virgin birth on the basis of this passage. In his commentary on this passage in Matthew, Calvin offers the following:

This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

The key here is “from these words.” Whatever case an opponent of Rome might have wanted to make, Calvin maintained, this passage does not make it, because this passage tells us nothing, he thought, one way or the other about whether or not Mary remained a virgin. He does, however, indicate that he does not think it is a subject we should be speculating about, given that Scripture does not give a clear indication on the subject.

Some (and again, I think, probably correctly) take Matthew 13:54-56 and similar passages to indicate that Mary and Joseph had other children. This passage reads “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?” Those who interpret the passage this way take the brothers and sisters here to be other members of Jesus’ immediately family, including Joseph (assumed by the speakers here to be Jesus’ father), Mary his mother, his brothers, and his sisters. There are some who accept the meaning of “brothers” and “sisters,” but maintain that these were all children of Joseph to a former wife, not Mary. Calvin denies that this passage is proof that Mary gave birth to other children, since the Hebrew word (actually Aramaic, in this setting) that would have been used for “brothers” can have a range of meaning, so we therefore cannot say that Mary must have had other children on this basis. See his commentary on Matthew:

The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.

Notice again Calvin’s conservatism. He does not claim that Mary had no other children, or that she did (although he uses “cousin” when referring to this and similar passages). What he says is that it is ignorance to claim that Mary must have had other children simply because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned. This alone, he says, proves nothing.

But here, too, anti-Protestant websites have been guilty of quoting this remark from Calvin as though it proves that he believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. If only they were as conservative and generous in their reading of Calvin as Calvin himself was in his reading of Scripture!

Lastly on the perpetual virginity of Mary, Calvin was just as careful to reign in over-zealous Catholic interpreters of the Bible as he was others, and it is here that he makes perhaps his most revealing comments. In Luke 1:34, right after Gabriel tells Mary that she is going to have a baby, we read, “Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?’,” “I am a virgin” is translated from Greek that literally means “I have not known a man.” Catholic interpreters have taken this saying of Mary to indicate a promise to remain a virgin in perpetuity. But true to form, Calvin pounces on this, too, noting that this is unfounded based on what is in the text. But in this case, Calvin goes further. He does not just say that the doctrine cannot be defended on the basis of this verse. He actually offers his view on the doctrine itself (namely that Mary committed to a life of virginity). See his commentary on this passage:

The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.

Not only does Calvin say that the claim that Mary committed herself to perpetual virginity is “unfounded” in this passage, but it is also “absurd” because to commit to perpetual virginity and to also take a husband would be an act of treachery against your husband, showing contempt for marriage, amounting to a mockery of God.

This is a striking claim. Here Calvin is speaking more strongly than before, not merely saying that a claim about Mary is not warranted based solely on the text, but he says, in effect, that it should be judged false. Surely Calvin did not believe that Mary engaged in treachery against Joseph. He is clearly targeting the “Papist” position here, which is that of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Who else, he asks, would be permitted by the church to be married and yet committed to virginity?

So although most of what Calvin said on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity is no more than a call to caution about claiming too much based on too little evidence, he did indicate (even if only once) that he looked unfavourably on the doctrine. Nowhere does he affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary.2

Bodily Assumption

When it comes to the next Marian doctrine, her bodily assumption into heaven, It is difficult to know where to look in Calvin’s work to show that what some Catholic apologists say about him is false. This is because there is no evidence anywhere in Calvin’s writings that he believed Mary had been bodily assumed into heaven. When people challenge Protestants by saying that Calvin “believed the Marian doctrines,” as far as I can tell they’ve heard somewhere that Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary (a claim that doesn’t appear to be warranted by the evidence), and then rather carelessly assumed that he had a “Catholic” view of Mary, like them, and probably held the Marian doctrines. But the bodily assumption is just invisible in Calvin’s writings. The most direct reference Calvin makes to this doctrine is where he points out – in somewhat ironic fashion – that this is what Catholics believed, thereby robbing themselves of the ability to produce relics of Mary’s body parts!

The belief that the body of the Virgin was not interred on earth, but was taken to heaven, has deprived them of all pretext for manufacturing any relics of her remains, which otherwise might have been sufficiently abundant to fill a whole churchyard.3

This mockery, admittedly, is not a direct statement about his own view of Mary’s bodily assumption, but to put it gently, it hardly helps the claim that Calvin believed it!

Coronation as Queen of Heaven

Just as in the case of the bodily assumption of Mary, you will search all of Calvin’s writings in vain for any comment supportive of the doctrine of the Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven. It simply isn’t there. I’ve looked! If anyone believes I have missed his support for the notion, please provide me with a source.

You can, however, find a reference to the title given to Mary by Roman Catholicism, “Queen of Heaven,” in Calvin’s work. And there, you can see just what he thought of it. In his commentary on the Magnificat, the thanksgiving prayer of Mary in Luke 1:46-50, Calvin noted the way Mary spoke of herself in such humble terms, and contrasted this with the way “papists” speak of her.

Hence we see how widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices, and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from God. They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such as, “Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life, Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.” Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over Christ; for this is their pretty song, “Beseech the Father, Order the Son.” None of these modes of expression, it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who had done to her wonderful things, no room is left for the pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be more disrespectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.

Conclusion

In light of the evidence, it’s galling that there are people making remarks to the effect that Calvin accepted the Marian doctrines. Perhaps people are just speaking loosely and carelessly, meaning that Calvin affirmed some of them. If that’s the case, then stop speaking loosely and carelessly. But even if that’s what you’re doing, which doctrines do you mean? I’ve seen some specifically claim that Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary, but that’s not true. And he certainly didn’t affirm the others.

So let us restore truth and care to what is often a heated war of words. Say that Calvin was wrong. Fine. I think he was wrong about some things, too (his doctrine of hell and his theological anthropology, for example). That’s the decent thing to do. But let’s at least let Calvin be Calvin. He did not affirm the Marian doctrines.

Glenn Peoples

John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published in 1562

I am grateful that at least one apologist for Catholic doctrine, Tim Staples, makes this admission publicly and calls other Catholics to avoid the error of claiming that Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/apologists-make-mistakes-too

“New directions in 2019” might sound like a New Year’s resolution, but it really isn’t. These plans came to be some months ago, but it just happens that I’ll be putting them into effect this year.

In February this year I’m returning to study. I will begin a psychology degree. And why would I do that? There are a few reasons.

First, it interests me. As I look back over some of the writing I’ve done at this blog that I’ve found particularly interesting, it has had a good deal of overlap with social science research in general. I documented how a study shows that adherents of organised religion have better mental health than other people. I commented on how a study shows that less educated people are more likely to abandon religious faith than more educated people. I remarked on how a study shows that the further up the education ladder we go (proceeding from Bachelors to Masters to PhD), the greater the concentration of religious people we find. I wrote about how a study shows that belief in God is actually the default natural state for human children, and that theism must be unlearned, rather than learned. I wrote a very short analysis of a study purporting to find that children from religious families are less kind than other children. There are a couple of other articles and studies on related fields that I will be writing about soon. This is all the stuff of social science research, and quite frankly, it just does it for me. There is also an apologetics angle in all this, identifying and demonstrating where the available evidence in social science research does not align, as is sometimes falsely alleged, with the hostile critiques on the Christian faith that some maintain it does, and in some ways aligns with what we would expect if Christianity is the truth that I maintain it is.

Secondly, there’s a reason very close to my heart for being interested in pursuing these studies. As I said in a recent post, mental health issues have had a profound impact on me, and even more so on people in my family (and again on me as a result). This is important stuff, and I want to go some way towards the wider effort to tame the beast, so to speak, that has done this to us. Call it a vendetta.

Thirdly, neither I nor my family are unique. There is a much greater societal awareness of the importance of addressing mental health problems and the devastating effect of not doing so in many cases. If you want to make the world a better place and you’ve got the mind and the interpersonal skills to do it, gaining expertise in psychology is one way of going about that.

Fourthly, it is my experience, partly from more general observation and partly in the experience of my family, that the social sciences and the psychological establishment (for want of a better term) is ideologically lopsided in harmful ways. People from Christian backgrounds, or their children, who interact with it can find themselves in the hands of people with worldviews that are fundamentally at odds with their own, and not – contrary to the comforting view some might prefer – because they are meeting face to face with science. I think this imbalance has implications for power over social change and it needs to be countered. My reluctance to give details here is due to my concern for the privacy of others.

Lastlyfor now (but I am sure there are other reasons), this is a path that opens up professional and vocational possibilities for me that will enrich my life and allow me ways to serve God better than I might otherwise have been able to. For example, while I remain in the corporate world, having a psychology qualification brings with it career possibilities in insight roles, and in a more pastoral role, it fits with my view that pastors should have the most excellent equipping possible to serve the Church. While theology, biblical studies, and even philosophy serve this end, there are ways in which psychology clearly does this as well as a person ministers to human beings in various states of brokenness.

The reason I have put off the decision to return to study for this long has been primarily financial. I’ll be doing this part-time, keeping my day job whole I do it, and I’ll be paying for it as I go. Although it’ll be worth it, it’ll be quite difficult. Feel very free to contribute to the effort if you’re so inclined. Check out the donation links in the sidebar. I really wish I had someone who could competently set up and run a Patreon account for me, but that’s an investment of time and learning I can’t really pursue just now.

This new venture will, naturally, mean that new topics of interest will find their way onto the blog. But the old interests aren’t going anywhere. Coming up at the blog over the next little while you’ll see posts about:

Calvin and the Marian doctrines (the Roman Catholic teachings about Mary, the mother of Jesus).

Those biblical passages about women. The next post in this series will be about the use of kephalē in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture).

Some thoughts about New Zealand’s loss of faith, which will be a short analysis of a report showing the changing proportion of people in New Zealanders with religious beliefs.

Abusing an emerging science: How primary research on gender dysphoria is already being misused for ideological purposes.

As well as (eventually) new posts in my serious about speaking in tongues and about a biblical portrait of human nature as material. I’m also going to get back into making short speaking videos, as these are particular useful in a world dominated by social media. So the old Glenn will still be here!

I hope your Christmas and New Year break has been a safe and joyful one. See you again soon!

Glenn Peoples

]]>http://www.rightreason.org/2019/new-directions-in-2019/feed/57568Keeping them in: The Church’s motive in marriage policyhttp://www.rightreason.org/2018/keeping-them-in-the-churchs-motive-in-marriage-policy/
http://www.rightreason.org/2018/keeping-them-in-the-churchs-motive-in-marriage-policy/#commentsTue, 18 Dec 2018 21:36:32 +0000http://www.rightreason.org/?p=7538Continue reading Keeping them in: The Church’s motive in marriage policy]]>Don’t create a church’s stance on marriage in order to make people happy or stop them from leaving.

In early 2017 (when I started writing this article, since which time it has sat gathering dust) the general Synod of the Church of England voted on same-sex marriage. Well, sort of. The General Synod voted not to endorse a report by the House of Bishops on Same-sex marriage. The report affirmed the biblical and historic Christian view that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. To be specific, there are three houses in the General Synod. The House of Bishops voted in favour of the report. The House of the Laity voted in favour of the report. But the support of all three houses is required, and the House of Clergy alone voted not to endorse the report, confirming the widely-suspected reality that the clergy are the more liberal element of the Church of England.

There were many issues discussed at the time and obviously I wasn’t present. On Twitter however I encountered a speech by activist Lucy Gorman. When I saw it I raised a criticism of it, but Lucy quickly blocked me so I can no longer see the portion of the speech that was shared there. Ever the believer in dialogue, I found this a little disappointing (especially since she had initially asked me for my view on the suicide of people who felt hurt by the church, but then told me that she didn’t really want to talk about it with me and blocked me).

So let me bring the issue to you, dear reader.

The Bishops’ report, while expressing the well-known and thoroughly uncontroversial view of the Church through the ages, took pains to stress that we (the Church) do not want to be heard as lacking in love for people who experience same-sex attraction, because this is not the case at all.

Lucy Gorman of York told the synod that “outside these walls, we are being heard as lacking in love”. No wonder, she added, that fewer young people were coming to church. “Why would people become part of a church that is seemingly homophobic?”

In the longer quote that I can no longer see, Gorman lamented the way that same-sex attracted people have responded to the Church regarding marriage as the union of a man and a woman, falling into despair and suicide.

The thought, as I understand it, is this: The Church is not progressive enough on this issue, and that is why people are leaving her (or simply not joining the Church in the first place). That is why she has a grim future, if she has one. It’s because the Church will not change its standards on sex and marriage to adapt to a more liberal understanding. It holds rigidly to old beliefs that are conservative, stale, restricting and not inclusive enough. If only the Church would show the world that it is more loving by altering its stance on love and marriage so that relationships it once considered not-marriage would now be considered marriage to make people feel more accepted and not hurt as they currently are by the Church, the Church would (partly, at least) save itself from attrition.

I have two reflections on this way of thinking, which I know is shared by many.

The Church’s job is not to love you as you want to be loved

While the Church, as the Bishops’ report stressed, does want to be seen as loving because the message and mission of the Church is loving, and while being loving is absolutely part of the Church’s mission, being viewed by others as loving is not part of the Church’s mission. Whether or not the Church is viewed as loving does not depend on the Church, but on others. There are those who think that preaching a Gospel message that we are sinners in need of redemption is unloving. If it was part of the mission of the Church to be seen by everyone as loving in everything she does, we would have to reconsider whether or not we preach this Gospel. To point out that there are people who view part of the Church’s message or practice as unloving is not at all to show that the Church needs to change. What it may show is that there are people who need to reconsider whether or not their assessment of what is loving and what is not is in need of correction.

The Church’s approach to loving you is centred on taking a Christ-centred view of you and a desire to help you be a disciple of Jesus in every respect.

This is particularly so when the individuals concerned are people who have chosen to submit to the teaching of Christ, to the teaching of Scripture, and who have chosen to belong to a community for whom such submission is central to our mission. When there is, on the face of it, a clear biblical teaching about marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as well as a clear history of the Church understanding this to be the teaching of Christ – a Church that professes to love you greatly and which in every other respect demonstrates that love – you should have great hesitation, to put it mildly, in declaring that because the Church’s view on marriage does not align with the sort of relationship you desperately want to have, it therefore does not love you. The Church’s approach to loving you is not centred around what feels natural and desirable to you. The Church’s approach to loving you is centred on taking a Christ-centred view of you and a desire to help you be a disciple of Jesus in every respect. From a Christian view (which, as you might expect, is the view the Church strives to embrace), loving you does not mean “affirming your story” in the sense of proclaiming that all your desires you find yourself having for yourself are the desires that God has for you. To state it bluntly: The Church doesn’t have to serve your will in order to love you. That’s not what love amounts to – even if you feel very hurt as a result of the Church not doing what you want. You can invest work trying to change the Church so that she starts to bear your image because the conflict between your desires and the teaching of the Church is painful, or you can invest that effort into yourself, allowing yourself to be changed by Christ through his Church.

By perpetuating the unloving and false claim that the Church is expressing a lack of love for same-sex attracted people by maintaining a biblical view of marriage, you may be doing terrible harm. The people you point to as examples – those who are leaving the Church or worse, harming and even killing themselves – are people who need to know that the Church’s stance is not borne of lack of love for them, and that they are loved greatly. But there you stand, pouring gasoline onto the emotional bonfire, encouraging them to believe that we don’t love them. Your message should not be directed at the Church, telling the Church to be more loving. Rather, your voice should join that of the Church, directing your message to the people you are expressing concern for, telling them that they are loved. It gives me no pleasure to point out that you are making their pain worse, not better, by describing this situation as one where the Church is failing to love same-sex attracted people.

The Church’s job is not to love you as you want to be loved. Indeed, what is at issue here is precisely whether or not it is loving for the Church to do what you want it to. If the biblical and historic Christian teaching about marriage is correct, there would be nothing loving about the Church, in effect, lying about marriage for your sake.

The Church’s problem is not what you think it is

Secondly, there is a familiar theme in your speech against the Church (I know you might not think you are opposing the Church but only one report by the Bishops, but you should be well aware that you are in fact opposing the stance of the Church throughout history). That theme is that the Church is failing to be sufficiently inclusive, sufficiently liberal-minded, sufficiently progressive, and as a result, the Church is losing members. It’s a message we see coming from many quarters, as in John Shelby Spong’s book title Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

This complaint against the Church is wrong in principle, and it is probably wrong in fact, too. It’s wrong in principle because the goal of the Church is not to proclaim a message that is agreeable to people so that they won’t walk away. From the very beginning, Christians have known that there are people who will reject the Church because of what we teach. Jesus said of his disciples that “the world hates them because they do not belong to the world.” This is not a defect in the Church. You are dangling in front of the Church a proverbial carrot that we should really have little interest in: The carrot of doing what it takes to be relevant and attractive to people.

But there’s a question of fact here, too. Is the threat of attrition faced by the Church really a problem of people thinking that the church is not progressive enough? Or is the problem that as the Church clambers over itself to get more progressive, to be less offensive, to find the path of least social resistance, and to, in effect, sand off the rough edges that are the perceived points of difference between the Church and the world, ostensibly making the Church more appealing, the Church is actually eroding the reasons to belong to the Church at all, exactly because it now offers little by way of principled difference?

Obviously if you raise a flag for people who have left the church over LGBT issues to rally to, as Gorman does, you will hear a concentrated sample of the anecdotes about people leaving the church because it is not progressive and accepting enough. But others who were not pursuing partisan activism have reached quite different conclusions about why people are leaving the Church. In the mid 1990s Benton Johnson (Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon) and others, speaking of the decline of mainstream denominations like the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in America, explained that “the single best predictor of church participation turned out to be belief-orthodox Christian belief, and especially the teaching that a person can be saved only through Jesus Christ.”

They go on:

In our opinion, the mainline Protestant membership loss is simply the next stage of this process of declining commitment to the church and to Christian faith and witness. The cultural revolution of the 1960s may have hastened its onset and added to its severity, but it was not its major cause. Most conservative religious communities came through the cultural turmoil in fairly good shape; the mainline Protestant churches were already too weak to mount an effective response.

A number of commentators have made mention of the turn of younger Christians towards liturgy, the traditional order of prayers and responses in Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox and other churches. The move is towards an older, more solid, less changanable form of religion. Indeed that is one of the great appeals of the Church – when the winds of culture blow, when trends come and go, the church represents something solid and steadfast, an anchor of sorts. When you say that really our problem is that we need to be more progressive on sexual ethics (i.e. more like you) and then it will be able to turn its decline around and regain some popularity, you are chasing the wrong goal, and you are probably just wrong about what will happen as a result. As I’ve said on related matters, you don’t get street cred by gutting the content of traditional Christian belief to make the people happy.

We are not called to do whatever it takes to keep people in the church. We’re called to tell and to embody the truth, knowing quite well that some people will hate it. You might not think that’s great marketing. Get over it. You’re chasing the wrong goal. And you also might be surprised about what will genuinely help the church to grow anyway. (Get over that, too, while you’re at it.)

Glenn Peoples

]]>http://www.rightreason.org/2018/keeping-them-in-the-churchs-motive-in-marriage-policy/feed/17538You don’t matter just because I carehttp://www.rightreason.org/2018/you-dont-matter-just-because-i-care/
http://www.rightreason.org/2018/you-dont-matter-just-because-i-care/#commentsTue, 27 Nov 2018 23:29:56 +0000http://www.rightreason.org/?p=7487Continue reading You don’t matter just because I care]]>We can’t erase the fact that abortion is homicide just because we aren’t as attached to the unborn as we are to other humans. The truth is that whether or not your life has value, and whether or not you are disposable, cannot be determined by how I feel about you.

There’s a view that pro-lifers (those who think it is wrong to kill unborn humans) are ignoring the reality that the death of an unborn child is less tragic than the death of somebody else. The death of an unborn is not the death of a human – not really – and actually we all know it, because we react differently to the death of an unborn child than to the death of somebody else. So wrote one blogger:

If you try to get pregnant and fail, it is frustrating. If you have a heavy menstruation slightly late, suggesting that fertilization occurred but the pregnancy failed very early on, it is even sadder. But it is not the same as managing to be pregnant for several months and then finding that the fetus has died. And that in turn is nowhere near as tragic as having your delivery date arrive and the child be stillborn.

Mothers know this. Fathers who’ve experienced any aspect of this know it too. And so how can so many people nonetheless accept the stark and unnuanced claim that “abortion is murdering babies” without a blink?

We can quickly brush aside the straw man that pro-lifers (namely, those who oppose abortion because it takes a life) are insensitive, mouth-breathing knuckle draggers who can’t make any differentiation between the feelings of parents who suffer a stillbirth and those of parents who fail to get pregnant. The phraseology that the writer uses to describe the position of pro-lifers, a “stark and unnuanced claim” that “abortion is murdering babies,” should also be seen as an attempt to portray pro-lifers in language that they, as a rule, don’t use in the way suggested.

But what pro-lifers do – again, as a rule – express is the position that abortion is unjustified homicide. And it is the pro-life position that the writer thinks he can undermine by pointing out that parents feel differently about the loss of their unborn thing (let’s avoid “baby” talk, shall we?) at different stages in the pregnancy.

The mistake – and I think it is a relatively obvious one – is that there is a basic distinction between how we feel about or react to a death and the objective reality of what has taken place. What mothers and fathers “know” here is just that they feel differently, not that one situation involves the loss of human life but the other doesn’t. As I noted in the comments section:

Of course pro-lifers know that we react differently to losing an X (I use that term because any other term would provoke an objection from somebody) very early in the pregnancy and losing an X much later. The psychological reaction is bound to be very strong.

But to infer on this basis that Mums and Dads know that an early embryo has no human status and is disposable is worse than the hardline fundies you devote yourself to railing against. No, Mums and Dads know that they feel differently about the loss. That’s the difference. And it’s not because of their theory of personhood. It’s because they’ve been waiting longer for baby to arrive and their expectation of the baby being born alive and healthy grows as the pregnancy progresses.

Unmoved, the writer protested that “We do not mourn the death of a loved one as differently regardless whether the person is 5, 15, or 25,” as though this somehow undercut my objection. It doesn’t, and I explained why, but I think the issue matters enough to share it here, too.

The truth is that we do mourn differently over death at different stages – and different circumstances – of life. We really do – just look around! The way a mother might sob over her dead 4 year old killed in an accident, “my little baby, my baby!” is different from the way she might mourn her mother, 90 years old, after a long and fulfilled life. This is because her hopes and expectations in each case were different. The way I would mourn if my 18 year old died of a drug overdose is different from the way I would react if I just now discovered that I *had* an 18 year old son out there in the world, who has just died. This is because of my history with the person who dies and my attachment to them.

The reason and the way we mourn death is brought about by all kinds of things: Our history and experience with the one who has died and so the connections we have formed with them, our expectations of a future with that person and the time we have spent building those expectations etc. But our own psychological response to a death is not at all a measure of whether or not a life worthy of protection has been lost. My feelings about you do not set your worth.

Glenn Peoples

]]>http://www.rightreason.org/2018/you-dont-matter-just-because-i-care/feed/27487Coming outhttp://www.rightreason.org/2018/coming-out/
http://www.rightreason.org/2018/coming-out/#commentsSat, 20 Oct 2018 10:29:32 +0000http://www.rightreason.org/?p=7441Continue reading Coming out]]>I’ve lived with depression for at least 14 years or so. I’ve made only passing, someone subtle references to it at the blog and elsewhere because – although I’m fully supportive of people who need to talk openly about it a lot for therapeutic purposes, I’m not one of them. Like a lot of people who live with depression, I’ve generally gotten by with self-management. I don’t want messages of support, because nothing has changed. I’m the same as I have been for years, and I’m not suddenly in need of sympathy. I also don’t want advice. My friends probably (hopefully!) know better than to share “Mom blogger” or celebrity advice about mental health with me anyway, but you should assume that I generally make myself pretty well-informed, especially about things that affect me on an everyday basis. And no, I am absolutely not an “at risk” person.

Depression doesn’t look exactly the same for everyone who is affected. For me, it’s in the fact that I can’t find the initiative to write much at the blog (or elsewhere), or to record podcast episodes at all. Actually it’s something that sucks away initiative to do a lot of things, and at its worst it makes it very hard to find value in many things in life at all. It’s a big part of the reason why I’ve slowed down in my pursuit of possible ordination in the church, although I haven’t let go of that goal. I’m going to have to work on myself a bit as part of that process. It’s seen in the belief that I’m going to fail even before I start something. At the worst of times it’s like perpetually falling through the day (or however long it lasts), so that it seems like no decisions are worth making (and it doesn’t really matter which ones I make), because nothing will come of it, or at least nothing good. It sometimes means no decisions, or bad decisions, or even hopelessness and fear that everything good I place faith in is a lie. Those are the really bad days, and they aren’t very common.

If you find yourself asking, “What reasons do you have to feel that way, or think those things?” then you’re assuming that depression is a purely rational state. It’s not. I know that the beliefs generated by those feelings aren’t true. But there they are anyway. No doubt *some* of the beliefs that drive depression are true. Maybe a lot of depressed people are a bit like the writer of Ecclesiastes, who knew that “with much wisdom comes much sorrow.” Maybe understanding the human condition is just depressing. But like a lot of states of mind, depression isn’t generally something you think yourself into. It’s something that affects the way you think and act.

What I’ve described might sound pretty bad, but that’s because I’m only talking about depression – not the other bits of life. But it’s not always like that at all. Like everyone else, people who live with depression have ups and downs. Sometimes the ups are great, and even the “downs” aren’t the end of the world. It’s something you have to learn to manage. There are even parts of your personality you come to be thankful for that are probably depression-related in some way. Depression isn’t something in addition to me. It’s a feature of me, or at least that’s how I’ve come to see it, and in some ways – but certainly not all the time – come to embrace. The best illustration of how that works (although no illustration is perfect), is the “black dog” video. I don’t really relate to the “stigma” of depression mentioned in the video, because I don’t feel stigmatised by it, although I know that some people feel that way.

Like I said, I generally self-manage, and I do pretty well. I can imagine plenty of people who would hear me tell you the things I’ve said here and say “What? You? But you’re so happy!” I find things that make me happy, and I do them. Doing physical things, making things, being creative, exerting yourself (I plan to be back in weight training soon), those things have all been really good for me. And as you’d expect, given that I’m a Christian, my relationship with God has a really important role to play in making some of this more bearable, in making life more meaningful, in giving me hope and so on. But I’ve decided to think about whether or not I might be able to do even better. Therapy might not be for everyone, and it might not turn out to be for me, but I’m going to give it a try. We’ll see what happens – although I make no promise to keep anyone posted on how it goes.

So. If I self-manage, if I’m not going to keep you posted on my progress, if I don’t want private messages of sympathy and support, and if I don’t want advice, then what’s the point of telling you this at all? The point is that it’s nice to know that you’re not the only one, and that there’s yet another person in the same boat. Over the years I’ve received lots of kind messages of support from people who read something I wrote or heard a talk I gave and wanted to tell me that it helped them. How many of them, I wonder, have mental health struggles they’re dealing with? They might have just assumed that I had things all together, otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to write that, or say that. Would it have helped them to know that I have those struggles too? Probably. I’m a private person when it comes to this sort of thing, and I can count on one hand the people I’ve spoken to about it. There’s nothing wrong with that of course, but I’m “outing” myself here in case it does you any good.

Glenn Peoples

]]>http://www.rightreason.org/2018/coming-out/feed/27441Liberal Anglicanism’s love of confusionhttp://www.rightreason.org/2018/liberal-anglicans-love-confusion/
http://www.rightreason.org/2018/liberal-anglicans-love-confusion/#commentsThu, 11 Oct 2018 00:36:21 +0000http://www.rightreason.org/?p=7421Continue reading Liberal Anglicanism’s love of confusion]]>THE RECENT Wellington Anglican Synod provided another example of how progressive Christianity is a beneficiary of unclear and confused thinking. Brothers and sisters on the left of the theological spectrum, I love you. But this is a problem you have.

I’m Anglican. I also oppose the liberal tendency of some Anglicans to want to constantly update the theology and practice of the Church to bring it “up to date” with the progressive concerns of the day, and one of the main such concerns of the day just now is the church’s view of sexuality and marriage.

I recently attended the Synod of the Wellington Diocese, as one of the Synod representatives of our parish. Of some interest me was a proposed motion about “gay conversion therapy.” As written, the motion was overwhelmingly opposed to an orthodox Christian view of sexuality. It not only called on Synod to oppose harmful, coercive therapy that sought to re-programme people who experience same-sex attraction, which is understandable (for no sort of pastoral care should be coercive), but it called on Synod to condemn outright all forms of counsel or therapy, including prayer, designed to influence a person’s orientation, and to call on Parliament to literally ban “gay conversion therapy.” This as the motion was written, would mean that if a person is a Christian who experiences same-sex attraction and who believes that same-sex sexual relationships are contrary to the teaching of Scripture and that such desires are a disordered state of affairs (in other words, they believe what the Church always taught until recently in some quarters), ministers would be forbidden from supporting them in seeking any sort of personal transformation. Regardless of whether it is possible to “change sexual orientation” (although various LGBT advocacy groups acknowledge that a degree of change happens for many people throughout their lives), to fail to support and to oppose by fiat all such efforts is to ride roughshod over what many (likely most!) Anglicans actually think about sex and sexuality and what the Church has consistently taught from its inception. The motion also expressly rejected the view that same-sex attraction is a disordered state.

I was heartened by the fact that before Synod, the motion received a significant amount of pushback, to the point where the original version was scrapped altogether in favour of a different motion, as follows:

NOTING the desire in the recommendations accompanying Motion 30 to General Synod Te Hinota Whanui in 2014: “…to make further response pastorally and prayerfully to LGBT people in [their] faith communities”

AND, noting the current public concern in Aotearoa-New Zealand about the pastoral practice known as ‘gay conversion therapy’, including the call for it to be outlawed by Parliament,

AND, noting that in July 2017 The Church of England passed a motion condemning said practice,

WHILE recognising the challenging nature of conversations around human sexuality in a community that has different perspectives,

AND also remembering that regardless of our differences we are called to responsible pastoral care of each other in the Body of Christ,

THAT this Synod:

Call upon the Church to be sensitive to, and to listen to, contemporary expressions of gender identity and sexual orientation; and

Acknowledge differing and strongly-held perspectives on the matter, and therefore call upon the Church to make room for careful and honest conversation that is safe for all participants; and

Stand against any denigration of the character or personhood of those who hold a differing perspective on matters of human sexuality; and

Condemn any pastoral practice which is coercive and/or disempowering of the recipient; and

Call on all church leaders to engage in constructive dialogue with each other and government on ways of protecting vulnerable minorities, especially those who identify as gender and sexual minorities, from these harmful practices; and

Remind all ministers of the obligations incumbent on them, and the principles to be upheld, when offering pastoral care, as outlined in the Diocesan Codes of Conduct and Ethics, especially that,

Every person, being created in God’s image, has infinite worth and unique value, irrespective of origin, race, ethnicity, gender, age, belief, social or economic status, sexual orientation, marital status, contribution to society or present psychological, physical or spiritual state;

All ministry, regardless of its form, should seek to bring glory to God, and further the best interests of those who receive it;

Every person may expect to be supported in the development of their God-given potential, while recognising the same expectation in others;

Every person, whether or not presently a member of the Church, may expect to receive objective and disciplined knowledge and skill, to enable that person to grow in the Christian faith; (Code of Ethics, (2) (a)-(d))

Ministers must respect the ethnic and cultural background, gender, class and sexual orientation of those to whom they minister;

Ministers should question practices in the church community that appear to be harmful or abusive (Code of Conduct, (3) (vi) (e), (g)).

Holding to an orthodox Christian view of sexuality, item 1) is of concern but able to be understood charitably. Of course we should be sensitive and listen. For many interpreters, however, this will mean being accepting – not simply of the person, but of that particular expression of sexuality, regardless of whether or not it results in behaviour incompatible with historically orthodox Christian and biblical views of sex and marriage. But as noted in the preamble, the fact is that this Anglican Church does contain differing views that its general Synod has signaled are permitted to exist side by side in what has been called a state of “two integrities.” That move was a mistake, but it was made.

There was much to commend in the new motion. Of course as a church ministering to people, our approach in all things should be loving, gracious and sensitive to people. My worry, however, was that it was clear to me (based on the comments made when the motion was presented, and also on some common sense and experience) that behind the motion was the continued push in the direction of accepting same-sex sexual desire and its expression as something to which the church should have no opposition. It is a mindset that says “we acknowledge that there are many in the church who believe such relationships amount to sin, now let’s go ahead and say, as a church, that those relationships are fine.”

As support for the motion, the motion appeals to the Code of Conduct, which says that “Ministers must respect the ethnic and cultural background, gender, class and sexual orientation of those to whom they minister.”

This appeal was concerning for me. In hindsight my real qualm was with the code of conduct itself. Look carefully at the wording. I say carefully because wording matters in such documents. Notice that the code does not call on ministers to respect all peopleto whom they minister, whatever their ethnic and cultural background, gender, class and sexual orientation. This would be quite appropriate. Rather, it calls on all ministers to respect (for example) the sexual orientation of those people. Exactly what that means is not explicit, but it goes beyond respecting people and involves extending a particular attitude to the orientation itself. How is this consistent with the fact that many ministers believe that same-sex attraction, a sexual orientation, is a disordered state? Does it not require that ministers put aside that conviction on their part? As a church of “two integrities,” how can we place this requirement on ministers?

I spoke to the motion and pointed this out. If this motion is being passed on the supposition that we must respect not only the people ministered to, but their sexual orientation, then the motion is at odds with the commitment to allow ministers to hold and express the historically orthodox Christian view on the matter.

Others spoke after me, responding to this concern, but frustratingly, none of them had listened. There were a couple of them, and one after the other, they stated that it is possible to respect a person while disagreeing with them. But how does this answer the concern? Of course we can respect a person while maintaining that their sexual orientation is a disordered state (just as we can respect a person and maintain that they have a mental illness, for example), but the concern was that ministers were being called on to respect not just the person, but their sexual orientation.

There was concern raised by some Synod members that the obligation of ministers to respect the sexual orientation of those to whom they minister would prevent them from holding to an orthodox biblical view, however members were reminded that to respect someone does not equate to agreeing with them on a matter. [emphasis added – Glenn]

… people are swayed by confused thinking if it sounds nice.

The careful reader should see what the “reminder” referred to here does not address the concern in the least. This is simply a muddying of the waters, but people are swayed by confused thinking if it sounds nice. I was heartened by the private appreciative comments of others. There are many who do not get involved in these arguments even though they lament the direction the church is taking, because they they cannot vote or speak (because they are not synod representatives), or they don’t want to deal with the way speaking up would harm them. If my role is to be an encouragement to them, then so be it.

The motion was passed, as I expected it would be. The code of conduct ought to be changed, and I invite other Anglicans in this province to support that change, so that in future the requirement reads: “Ministers must respect the people to whom they minister, whatever their cultural background, gender, class, or sexual orientation.”

Glenn Peoples

]]>http://www.rightreason.org/2018/liberal-anglicans-love-confusion/feed/27421Talking (and talking, and talking) about mental healthhttp://www.rightreason.org/2018/talking-abut-mental-health/
http://www.rightreason.org/2018/talking-abut-mental-health/#commentsTue, 18 Sep 2018 00:21:19 +0000http://www.rightreason.org/?p=7394Continue reading Talking (and talking, and talking) about mental health]]>“Let’s get people talking about mental health.” It sounds good in principle, but like many turns of phrase that sound virtuous, in the wrong hands and in the wrong context it is advice that can be anything but helpful.

[I wrote most of this article shortly after the death of actor Robin Williams. It has sat in draft for a few years for no particular reason, and I have brushed it up and published it now.]

Another man has killed himself, this time another entertainer. Although more women than men harm themselves, more men than women kill themselves. News stories that carry the story are, as always, including contact details for youth mental health services, and the story is being associated with the fact that we need to talk about depression and suicide. That message is loud and clear: We need to talk about it. It’s great that we’re getting people talking. We need to talk more. We need to get the issue out there more and get people talking. Talk!

That’s good and bad. Not all exposure to the issues of mental health and of suicide is healthy. Not all conversations about mental health and suicide should be had, and some people, given their own personal circumstances, are not helped by being shown a story about a well-liked celebrity who has ended his life, they are certainly not helped by the conversations and culture into which they are drawn as a result, and they need less talk about it, because the people who are talking about it around them really don’t know how to talk about it. Some of that is unpopular stuff to say, I know. I don’t want to take away from the genuine grief of people who are saddened by the loss of someone. I’ve been publicly devastated by the loss of entertainers in the past (I think of Gary Moore and Ronnie James Dio, for example) and there’s nothing wrong with that. But let me try to explain what I mean.

First, I know I could be wrong, because the question of how people actually respond to any event tragic or otherwise is an empirical one, established by data. We don’t know what the data is, and it would be pretty hard to obtain because we all mislead ourselves about ourselves. People who respond by wallowing in an unhealthy way aren’t going to describe their response that way, and people who contribute to a particular subculture that needs to “talk more about depression and suicide” with an unintended consequence of getting people to consider the possibility of suicide when they otherwise wouldn’t have aren’t aware that this is what they are doing. So this is the perspective of just one person.

But I’m a person who knows what mental unwellness is like, who has known people who ended their lives, and who has family members with mental health struggles, self-harm habits and a history of suicide attempts. I like to think I’m also pretty smart and also pretty loving. I’m concerned about my fellow human and my opinion is worth something.

I don’t worry that we want awareness of mental health struggles (being made aware, for example, that men are more likely to suffer depression for longer and for it to not be identified has been very good for men). I worry about how we’re doing it. I worry about the immediate association of depression with suicide, for example, so that the conversation we encourage is one of “depression and suicide.” Most people who suffer from depression are not suicidal and have no desire to end their lives. In fact even in severe cases of depression, depression alone is unlikely to make a person commit suicide. We have to be careful about simply passing on these news stories along with the unfiltered, unqualified statement that we need to get people talking about depression and suicide, sure that we are positively contributing to the great cause of the day. The conversations that we have create a culture. There are people who struggle with poor mental health who have not seriously considered suicide but who will consider suicide because of this conversation that is being encouraged. That’s a fact, and it’s one you might not be considering when you click “share.” These are people who would, of course, benefit from talking to competent, careful people about their mental health, but that’s not what is happening when these stories are shared along with the chorus of “let’s talk about it” and their labels of “distressing content” (which function somewhat like the “Parental advisory: Explicit content” stickers on CDs to make you buy them).

I’m aware of circles of teenage friends consisting of people who are generally pretty mentally healthy but who are attracted to a depressed culture – emo music (with which I have no problem), memes about how unhappy I am, and attention-seeking conversations – in which people have proposed “depression support groups,” a label that sounds wonderful in principle, except everyone involved is someone who is certain they’re mentally unwell (whether they are or not), knows more or less nothing about actually assisting people who genuinely suffer poor mental health, who really have no constructive, well-defined goal in mind, and who would actually be doing nothing more than creating pity parties of otherwise healthy young people who are now going to spend time mutually wallowing in how depressed they say they are, with nobody who could actually offer any assistance or cut through the crap. They need to talk a lot less, and talk a lot better. Far be it from me to say that people in these circles can or should be *sheltered* from news about famous people who have killed themselves. But we need to be careful in our focus.

Don’t just *talk* about it as though talking about it is the goal.

Sure, let’s talk about it. Carefully. Wisely. Responsibly. With the right people and in the right context. Don’t just *talk* about it as though talking about it is the goal. It’s not. Getting help if you need it and getting better (or at least learning to manage) is the goal – and for you, that goal may be found without saying very much to many people at all. Some talking is good, but some is not because it doesn’t get you any closer to that goal. When these stories appear in the news here in New Zealand, they are usually accompanied by contact details for organisations that are able to offer assistance with mental health issues. Talk about it with them. Or talk about it first with someone who will not encourage and enable you to just talk, and talk, and talk, and talk without any constructive action. Your parent, if they are someone who might have an idea of what to do next. Your pastor or priest. Your counsellor if you have one. Your doctor. But don’t just encourage “the conversation” so that we’re all talking about it, as though that’s a worthy end in itself.

Take it for what it’s worth

Glenn Peoples

]]>http://www.rightreason.org/2018/talking-abut-mental-health/feed/87394Episode 055: The Direction of Changehttp://www.rightreason.org/2018/episode-055-the-direction-of-change/
http://www.rightreason.org/2018/episode-055-the-direction-of-change/#commentsMon, 27 Aug 2018 12:24:03 +0000http://www.rightreason.org/?p=7367Continue reading Episode 055: The Direction of Change]]>Earlier this year, the Synod of the Anglican Church in New Zealand and Polynesia made the decision to allow the blessing of same-sex relationships alongside marriages (but not to perform same-sex weddings, because they aren’t marriages – yes, it’s a confusing position). The Sunday after this decision was made, it was my turn to preach.

I took the opportunity to remind us all that yes, change occurs when people come into contact with the Church. But it’s not supposed to be the Church that changes.

]]>http://www.rightreason.org/2018/episode-055-the-direction-of-change/feed/273670:00:01Earlier this year, the Synod of the Anglican Church in New Zealand and Polynesia made the decision to allow the blessing of same-sex relationships alongside marriages (but not to perform same-sex weddings, because they aren’t marriages –[...]Earlier this year, the Synod of the Anglican Church in New Zealand and Polynesia made the decision to allow the blessing of same-sex relationships alongside marriages (but not to perform same-sex weddings, because they aren’t marriages – yes, it’s a confusing position). The Sunday after this decision was made, it was my turn to preach.
I took the opportunity to remind us all that yes, change occurs when people come into contact with the Church. But it’s not supposed to be the Church that changes.
culture, podcastGlenn PeoplesnonoProgressive social media: A translation guidehttp://www.rightreason.org/2018/progressive-social-media-a-translation-guide/
http://www.rightreason.org/2018/progressive-social-media-a-translation-guide/#commentsSun, 22 Jul 2018 22:50:53 +0000http://www.rightreason.org/?p=7334Continue reading Progressive social media: A translation guide]]>The reason the blog is quiet just now is a purely practical one. I’m finishing off some renovation at home. That’s nearly done, and blog entries will start flowing more regularly, but while I’ve been laying floorboards and insulating walls, I’ve been thinking.

We need to be relevant. We need to be able to communicate with the under-30s. What we need to do is learn the language of online progressive communication to use in our articles, blogs, and social media comments. To this end, I’ve taken a swing at a short, handy translation guide. So before you write that next headline or reply to that next tweet, try these easy tips to make yourself more understandable to the generation that really cares about justice.

Instead of saying:

Try saying:

“Michael expresses disagreement with John, with whom I also disagree.”

“Michael DESTROYS John.”

“Karen has the last say in a disagreement with a conservative author before the video clip ends.”

“Karen SHUTS DOWN bigot on live TV.”

“News host engages in a monologue about why she disagrees with Bob’s theory, and gets quite emotional about it. I share her sentiment.”

“Watch this host’s EPIC TAKEDOWN of Bob’s ignorance.”

“I know a lot of people have talked about X already, but not enough people agree with me, or at any rate, I want to give the impression that I’m the first one in history to care about X.”

“Can we talk about X?”

“True, this article or tweet is about a slightly different subject. But I’d like to capitalise on the popularity of the article / tweet and divert some of that attention to myself. It’s not enough for me to go on about it to my own friends or readership.”

“Can I just talk about X?”

“I have tried many times to express a good argument against this conservative and socially out-of-step idea or movement, but I haven’t been very successful at showing that I have a good reason to believe what I do, and I find that frustrating.”

“Dear Evangelicals: I am DONE with you.”

“I like your comment. I have tried to argue for my position before, but I don’t really have any good arguments, lol. You might not have any either, but you said it with such gusto, and now you have to defend what you said and I can just pass the buck to you when challenged.”

“THIS.”

“I think bullying is actually OK when it amounts to ganging up on somebody who holds a view that people like me who hold populist liberal positions as the result of cultural pressure don’t accept. Basically, you should just shut up and fit in with us.”

“[PERSON / GROUP I DISAGREE WITH] is on the wrong side of history.”

“Kevin, a presenter who agrees with my views, expresses some claims that are disputed by his conservative interviewee.”

“Watch as this conservative gets FACT CHECKED by Kevin!”

There are probably other important phrases and terms you should swap out, but these will hopefully get you started. Extrapolate from here to other situations, or feel free to share your own examples in the comments below. Sharing is caring!